How geopolitical developments, shipping, and financial markets validated a strategic approach in a year of uncertainty.
Concluding the review of the first half of 2025, we had pointed out that the year had not yet revealed its true depth but had merely laid the foundations for what would become a significant year. The first half functioned as a period of adjustment, shock absorption, and risk reassessment, within an environment of heightened uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, and monetary confusion. We had emphasized that markets had not completed their cycle and that the “big picture” would begin to clarify in the second half of the year, when political choices, monetary decisions, and real capital flows would start to connect more clearly with one another.
The second half of 2025 confirmed precisely this reading. The return of Donald Trump’s strategy to the forefront, the gradual shift in the rhetoric and stance of the Federal Reserve, the restoration of confidence in the U.S. economy, and the more sober assessment of risk by investors shaped an environment that was less noisy but clearly more substantive. Markets moved from a phase of excessive anxiety to one of selective risk-taking, with strong differentiation in returns, increased importance of stock picking, and a clear shift of capital toward sectors linked to the real economy, energy, shipping, and infrastructure. At the same time, Europe began to display its structural weaknesses more clearly, while the geopolitical outlook, particularly the prospect of de-escalation in Ukraine, started to be gradually priced in, creating new balances and expectations.
This review of the second half aims to record how the forecasts of the first half evolved into trends, how volatility transformed from a threat into a tool, and how markets began to price in the transition to a new investment cycle. Within this framework follows a detailed month-by-month mapping of developments, to clearly show not only what happened, but why it happened, and what it means going forward.
July From Working Hypothesis to Confirmation
July marked the starting point of the second half and the first clear moment when the assessments of the first half began to translate into real trends. With the signing of the “Big Beautiful Bill” on July 4th, Donald Trump sent a clear signal that his economic agenda was returning not as campaign rhetoric, but as applied economic policy. In our articles, we had emphasized that the new president was acting according to a plan rather than through fragmented moves, and already in the first weeks of the month this began to be reflected in investment behavior and the gradual restoration of confidence in U.S. markets.
Despite the approach of July 9th, a milestone date for the expiration of tariff extensions, and the intense speculation surrounding a possible resurgence of inflation and slowdown fears, the market did not react negatively. On the contrary, as we had highlighted, statements regarding a new extension until August 1st and negotiations with dozens of countries confirmed that tariffs were being used strategically rather than punitively. The relative calm that prevailed in markets towards mid and late July validated our assessment that tariff-related fears had already been largely priced in during the previous quarter.
In July, we also stressed that despite the return of confidence compared to the March–April period, there were no signs of investment euphoria, and that any correction would represent an opportunity for positioning. This was confirmed in the weeks that followed, as mild corrections in specific sectors were absorbed through buying activity, without disrupting the overall upward momentum. The market began to operate exactly as we had described: selectively, with differentiation rather than broad risk aversion.
Particularly important was the behavior of retail investors. Nasdaq data showing higher buying volumes than selling since the beginning of the year confirmed our core thesis that capital preferred market participation over disinvestment, even in an environment of elevated volatility. This upward stance was not the result of euphoria, but of strategic positioning, a dynamic that became increasingly evident as summer progressed.
At the same time, another key conclusion was validated: that sharp fluctuations and alternating market directions would not be temporary, but a structural characteristic of the Trump presidency. The ongoing confrontation between Trump’s political will for aggressive rate cuts and the Federal Reserve’s stance, where Jerome Powell cited tariffs as a reason for delay, created exactly the environment we had described: high volatility coupled with increased opportunity for those actively monitoring all asset classes.
Finally, the start of the earnings season at the end of July confirmed yet another of our assessments: that the second half would gain momentum from fundamentals rather than headlines. Early earnings signals began to support valuations and reinforce the upward trend we had anticipated.
Overall, July confirmed that the second half began not with simple optimism, but with structured confidence. Our core views on tariffs, volatility, and investment behavior were validated from the very first month, setting the framework for the developments that followed.
August When Assessments Move onto the Trading Screen
August was the month in which our assessments began to be confirmed not at the level of expectations, but through direct market reaction. In our articles, we emphasized that the period of intense volatility and “manufactured uncertainty” was approaching its end, and that positive news would begin to be priced more consistently, even with some delay. This transition became clear in August, when for the first time in many months successive positive inflation readings were not ignored but triggered upward reactions in U.S. indices, confirming our view that markets had grown tired of pricing fear alone.
At the same time, our position regarding the escalation of tensions between Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve was confirmed, moving from rhetoric to concrete actions. The resignation of Kugler and the appointment of Miran during August marked the first tangible sign that Trump was beginning to shape the future direction of the Fed, as we had already noted in the first half of the year. Concurrently, markets began to more clearly price in the start of rate cuts from the autumn, validating our view that the narrative of “prolonged monetary tightness” was unsustainable.
Capital flow analysis was also validated. In August, it became evident that the vast amounts of capital held in money market funds were not a sign of pessimism, but of delayed positioning. The reaffirmation of the U.S. credit rating by S&P Global Ratings on August 19th confirmed our assessment that markets trust the fiscal resilience of the U.S., even amid high debt levels, and that tariffs now function as a revenue tool rather than a destabilizing threat.
Additionally, August validated our analysis of major asset managers’ behavior. Warren Buffett’s selective purchases in healthcare stocks and the immediate positive reaction of those equities served as a clear signal that the phase of excessive liquidity hoarding was beginning to end. As we had pointed out, such moves typically follow the first wave of repositioning rather than lead it.
Finally, August also began to validate our geopolitical outlook. Early indications that the war in Ukraine was entering its final stages began to be reflected in market behavior and improving shipping indices, reinforcing our belief that peace, when approaching, is priced in long before any official announcement. The rise in the Baltic Dry Index and improving freight indicators during August served as early signs that markets were beginning to “read” the next phase.
Overall, August functioned as a month of silent confirmation. Without euphoria but with a clear shift in behavior, markets began aligning with our views: movement toward rate cuts, gradual de-escalation of geopolitical risk, capital repositioning, and the emergence of sectors tied to the real economy and shipping. It was the month when theory began to turn into practice.
September Decisions and the Validation of Early Warnings
September emerged as the month in which many of the assessments we had articulated since the first half, and reinforced during the summer, were confirmed in an undeniable way. First and foremost, the slowdown in the U.S. labor market, with just 22,000 new jobs in August and unemployment at 4.3%, confirmed our view that labor market fatigue would ultimately act as a catalyst for rate cuts rather than as a negative for markets. The significant revision of nearly one million jobs for the prior twelve months definitively shifted the narrative, prompting even conservative institutions such as Bank of America to change stance and price in rate cuts by year-end. This was precisely the scenario we had outlined: that high-interest rate policy could not be sustained without cost and that the Federal Reserve’s pivot would come more abruptly than markets expected.
At the same time, September fully validated our position on Europe’s structural weakness. Rising spreads, particularly centered in France, and growing nervousness around fiscal choices across European governments provided tangible proof that the problems we had highlighted for months were not theoretical. The ECB’s rigid stance began to translate into relative disinvestment from European markets, while U.S. indices reached new highs. This divergence confirmed our assessment that capital would seek safety and returns in the U.S., especially as Europe struggled to adapt.
In equity markets, September strongly validated our emphasis on stock picking and valuation discipline. Oracle’s explosive move, rising more than 35% and adding approximately $300 billion in market capitalization within a few sessions, illustrated exactly what we had stressed: indices do not reflect the true scope of opportunity, and artificial intelligence can act as a valuation catalyst far more broadly than markets assume. The divergence between index-level performance and individual stock returns clearly confirmed our strategy.
At the same time, September validated our views on alternative markets. The continued rise of the Baltic Dry Index and heightened activity in shipping confirmed that shipping remains a leading indicator of global trade rather than a laggard. Movements in oil, natural gas, and currencies also offered profitable volatility, reinforcing our belief that the final quarter of the year would not be driven by equities alone, but by comprehensive risk management across asset classes.
Finally, key events during the month, ECB and Fed decisions and triple witching, confirmed that September is indeed a decision hub. Not because it provided all answers, but because it made clear that direction had already been set lower rates in the U.S., growing divergence from Europe, high volatility, and multiple opportunities for professionally managed investors. It was the month when markets began to clear in the final and most critical quarter of 2025.
October The Narrative Shift and the Return of Confidence
October was the month in which our central second-half assessments moved from anticipation to visible confirmation. First, it became clear that the Federal Reserve’s shift would come not with noise but with a change in tone. Jerome Powell’s references to a “soft landing” and “gradual rate cuts” validated what we had described since early in the year: the end of rigid monetary dogma. Markets reflected this shift through strengthening in rate-sensitive sectors such as technology, consumer discretionary, and real estate.
Second, October confirmed our analysis that U.S. economic outperformance versus Europe would be structural, not cyclical, driven by production, energy strength, and investment confidence. The narrative of industrial renewal and infrastructure regained depth and market expression, while tariffs were increasingly recognized as instruments of negotiation and fiscal stabilization rather than simple protectionism.
Third, Europe was unfortunately validated as the weak link, as we had warned early in 2025. Strategic rigidity and high energy costs translated into pressure on the euro and competitiveness risk. Discussions on full independence from Russian gas by 2028 highlighted precisely the issue we had stressed: political decisions lacking economic realism led to long-term industrial contraction and capital relocation toward the U.S. and Asia.
Fourth, our geopolitical reading was confirmed. De-escalation in the Middle East and progress toward a Ukrainian settlement reduced risk premiums in energy and shipping routes, improving sentiment in maritime markets. The Baltic Dry Index’s sustained momentum validated our thesis of shipping as a thermometer for the next phase.
Finally, October validated our most practical message: returns would come not from big bets, but from diversification and sector selection. Stability began to replace insecurity in the narrative, always the phase where long-term returns are built before mass euphoria appears.
November Market Maturity Behind the Silence
In November 2025, the narrative developed across three texts aligned clearly with specific dates, highlighting not just what we said, but when it began to be reflected in markets and news. Starting with November 3rd, we argued that markets were transitioning from fear/euphoria toward mature normality, with opportunities emerging quietly through quality selection. This pattern was confirmed as thematic shocks failed to destabilize markets, while rotation and quality selection dominated behavior.
We also emphasized that the Fed’s stance would change and that markets would begin pricing in easing. This was evident early in November, as probabilities for a December move rose sharply following labor data and policy signals.
In the November 9th article, we highlighted liquidity catalysts and geopolitical de-escalation. The “Tariff Dividend” narrative emerged as a tangible policy discussion, reinforcing demand and consumption expectations. At the same time, renewed dialogue on strategic materials between the U.S. and China confirmed our thesis that the next phase would focus on technological self-sufficiency rather than unlimited globalization.
In the November 23rd piece, two confirmations emerged: first, markets increasingly priced in December rate cuts, second, the peace narrative for Ukraine shifted from low to high probability, with draft plans entering public discussion. Markets began to price peace before any official agreement, exactly as we had described.
Overall, November was not a month of single events, but of narrative maturation. Markets reduced noise sensitivity and refocused on cost of capital, real economy dynamics, supply chains, and geopolitical risk premiums.
December The Big Picture Locks In
In December, markets moved from anticipation to confirmation of the major geopolitical and economic divergences we had described since November. The core thesis, that the post-war environment would widen the gap between the U.S. and Europe, began to be clearly reflected in capital behavior.
Early December confirmed U.S. monetary policy easing, as the Federal Reserve cut rates and announced bond purchases, validating our long-held view that the Fed would actively support growth. Market reactions, initial volatility, gold and euro strength, confirmed our belief that investors were shifting from relief to risk reassessment.
Geopolitically, discussions around Ukraine entered a more serious negotiation phase, and markets began pricing peace ahead of any final agreement. Europe’s structural disadvantages became clearer through legal risks, energy constraints, and limited strategic control, while the U.S. reinforced its role as the primary beneficiary of the next phase.
Shipping emerged once again as a strategic winner, benefiting from longer energy routes, LNG flows, and reconstruction expectations. December confirmed that shipping operates not only cyclically but strategically, as a hedge against geopolitical and monetary risk.
Overall, December confirmed our core conclusion: markets are entering a phase of capital and power reallocation. Those who recognized this early positioned themselves from a position of strength.
The Role of the Investment Advisor in a High-Volatility Year
The year 2025 demonstrated with absolute clarity the essential role of the investment advisor. It was not a year of linear growth or simple narratives, but one marked by shifting sentiment, high volatility, geopolitical tension, and transitional monetary policy. In such an environment, the greatest risk was not volatility itself, but emotional decision-making.
Investors with guidance responded to data rather than noise, viewed corrections as opportunities rather than threats, and avoided chasing euphoria. The investment advisor is not a predictor, but a filter of information, a risk manager, and a strategic architect. Value is measured not only in return, but in avoided mistakes, disciplined allocation, and psychological resilience.
The second half of 2025 rewarded strategy, discipline, and clarity of logic. The connection to the first half is clear: what was identified early was later confirmed, not by chance, but through analysis and structure.
This is the key conclusion of the review. In years of high volatility and uncertainty, the investment advisor is not a luxury, but a core tool for capital protection and opportunity creation. The investor with guidance did not avoid volatility, he used it. As markets accelerate into the next cycle, those prepared with strategy and professional guidance will enter from a position of strength.
At GEKODESK & PARTNERS, we remain committed to precisely this role, translating major changes into strategic decisions and standing beside investors when markets test judgment more than patience.
